The ecological validity of two novel non-immersive virtual reality tests of attention and executive functions in an mTBI population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Within the realm of mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) research, it has been argued that current test measures of attention are not sufficiently sensitive to assess the various aspects of attention involved in everyday life. The literature indicates that virtual reality (VR) test measures that resemble real-life situations have good ecological validity. Novel VR assessment tools were developed and their predictive ability investigated as it pertains to return to work (RTW) in a sample of patients in the post-acute recovery period of mTBI. METHODS: 50 participants who had sustained an mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) were recruited. Their clinical evaluation included an intake interview, standardized neuropsychological battery, psychological questionnaires. Two virtual reality tests (VRTs) were developed and also given to the participants. RESULTS: Tests of attention (VR and traditional tests) significantly predicted group membership at 82% accuracy, with 82.6% sensitivity and 81.5% specificity. The second difficulty level attention shift trial of the VRT and to a lesser degree the total speed score of the Ruff 2 & 7 were predictive of employment status. DISCUSSION: These findings provide a starting point for future studies to determine which particular parameters and combination of tests would comprise an 'ecological battery' in an effort to place clinical neuropsychological diagnostic decision making as it pertains to employability on firmer scientific grounds.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".